Motion sickness (and rail replacement buses)

[Tetchytyke]

I do believe if the bus was a genuine issue to travel then an alternative should be sought.

And to be fair it often is. Passengers who cannot use a bus because of disability will usually be offered a taxi instead.

The passenger's got a rail ticket from A to B and their service has been cancelled. There is another rail route to their destination. In what kind of a crazy set-up do we then say it doesn't make sense to allow them to use it?

You still haven't explained where you would draw the line (if, indeed, you would). As I said, you can find an "alternative rail route" between almost any two stations if you look hard enough.

I also don't see why passengers who have paid to travel via a specific route should be inconvenienced by those who haven't, as we saw with the excessive overcrowing on XC and VTEC last week.

 

[ComUtoR]

And to be fair it often is. Passengers who cannot use a bus because of disability will usually be offered a taxi instead.

Apologies for the next step in the argument and I'm only seeking to be Devils Advocate here.

Firstly the OP would not be able to travel by Taxi due to motion sickness and, my main point, What if your in a situation where even a Taxi isn't suitable ? (cycle, luggage, prams, motorbility scooter etc)

It's a bit of a rabbit hole that this will go down and as naja rightfully mentions it may be that rail is the only suitable alternative. I don't believe there is a real answer here. There is always going to be a situation where a passenger is just stuck and the TOC has no alternative. We could belabour the point all day and still get nowhere. It's a catch 22 situation.

Every mode of transport has its limitations and rail is no different.

 

[BRX]

But you aren't accepting that.

I am. I accept that I might have to choose between the discomfort of a bus or a significantly extended journey time if completed by rail. Those are my alternatives and with both I have to accpet that the journey is not completed as planned.

As to the costs incurred then its just another cost that will invariably get passed on to the passenger in the long term.

I don't believe that allowing a small number of passengers to travel on an alternative route on services which are running anyway is likely to incur a significant, real cost.

When I travel by train knowing that a bus may be offered as an alternative I don't see it as any fault or responsibility of the TOC to make specific arrangements for me because I don't travel well on buses. If it happened on a regular basis then I would seriously take a look at my own behaviour.

How would you change your behaviour? Decide not to travel, in general? Is it desirable that the railways - which I see as a public service, giving people mobility - are set up in such a way that people who don't travel well on other modes can't even rely on the purchase of a rail ticket to give them a reasonable chance of being able to make that journey by rail?

Why should you get something that you haven't paid for ?

What "thing" am I getting that I haven't paid for?

To put it another way. If you got a cheaper ticket because the one you purchased was limited to TOC A and by ROUTE A. But due to a disruption you could potentially use TOC B and ROUTE B should that be free or are you prepared to accept that you can pay the difference in ticket price ?

It shouldn't be "free" - it should be at no extra cost compared to the ticket I already paid for.

If, by your logic, that any journey should be permitted. Is it then reasonable for a TOC to no longer sell a restricted ticket ?

My logic is not that any journey should be permitted. I'm saying that in the (relatively rare) event of disruption then the usual restrictions should be modified to allow completion of journeys by alternaitve routes.

In the vast majority of journeys there's no unforeseen or significant disruption. Where it's possible for me to complete my journey by rail, without contravening any conditions on my ticket, then of course I accept those conditions.

 

[EbbwJunction1]

A serious question: why does motion sickness affect people travelling by road when it doesn't affect people travelling by train - or does it?

(I don't suffer from it, and I know very little about it, hence my question.)

 

[exile]

A serious question: why does motion sickness affect people travelling by road when it doesn't affect people travelling by train - or does it?

(I don't suffer from it, and I know very little about it, hence my question.)

Different vehicles have different forms of motion - a bus tends to have a lot of up and down motion and sharp acceleration and deceleration. Trains accelerate and decelerate smoothly and railways are engineered to minimise the effect of travelling round curves.

Personally I don't suffer from sickness on cars, trains or planes, but I do on boats (but only in bad weather, when just about everybody is affected)

 

[EbbwJunction1]

Different vehicles have different forms of motion - a bus tends to have a lot of up and down motion and sharp acceleration and deceleration. Trains accelerate and decelerate smoothly and railways are engineered to minimise the effect of travelling round curves.

Personally I don't suffer from sickness on cars, trains or planes, but I do on boats (but only in bad weather, when just about everybody is affected)

Okay, thanks; very useful.

However, I thought that sickness on boats (and planes?) was something other than motion sickness ... or am I wrong? (Again, I don't generally have a problem there, either!)

 

[najaB]

A serious question: why does motion sickness affect people travelling by road when it doesn't affect people travelling by train - or does it?

Different people are affected differently. Some people are affected equally by both, some moreso by one than the other. I recently was talking to a lady I met on the train (I know shock horror!), she said her son couldn't travel more than 20 to 30 minutes by car or bus but was okay on the train - something to do with the nature of the motion as surprisingly he was fine on ferries. So her husband was driving down with their daughter and would meet them at the other end of the journey.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

However, I thought that sickness on boats (and planes?) was something other than motion sickness ... or am I wrong? (Again, I don't generally have a problem there, either!)

They're all forms of motion sickness, largely it's due to the the neurovestibular system and visual cues not matching up. The brain gets confused and (at least according to some) thinks that you've been poisoned - hence the attempt to get rid of the stomach contents.

 

[ComUtoR]

I am. I accept that I might have to choose between the discomfort of a bus or a significantly extended journey time if completed by rail. Those are my alternatives and with both I have to accpet that the journey is not completed as planned

Your choice is to accept your journey may be completed by bus. You yourself stated that the passenger must accept that their journey may be completed in such a way they haven't planned for. You aren't accepting that core principle. What you want is to plan for rail and to only accept rail as an alternative.

How would you change your behaviour? Decide not to travel, in general? Is it desirable that the railways - which I see as a public service, giving people mobility - are set up in such a way that people who don't travel well on other modes can't even rely on the purchase of a rail ticket to give them a reasonable chance of being able to make that journey by rail?

I totally accept that each method of transport has its limitations. If I cannot travel by bus and bus is a potential in disruption then no, I would not travel by rail. I do not travel by coach for the same reason. I would also not buy a ticket where I am restricted in such a way that when it goes wrong I would be forced to use something that wasn't suitable. That is my personal responsibility and one that I would have to accept. Buying something knowing its restrictions certainly puts the onus on me.

What "thing" am I getting that I haven't paid for?

It shouldn't be "free" - it should be at no extra cost compared to the ticket I already paid for.

When you travel on an alternative route and alternative TOC you haven't paid for that. The price of your ticket is determined by TOC and route (hopefully someone can confirm/debunk)

I can travel up to Brum cheaply but its on the stopper, takes forever, is packed, and generally a horrible journey. Or I can pay the extra and go on a different TOC and faster service. I don't have the right to travel on the better route just because mine was disrupted. I paid for the cheaper ticket and must accept those restrictions.

My logic is not that any journey should be permitted. I'm saying that in the (relatively rare) event of disruption then the usual restrictions should be modified to allow completion of journeys by alternative routes.

I don't disagree but that does come at a price.

In the vast majority of journeys there's no unforeseen or significant disruption. Where it's possible for me to complete my journey by rail, without contravening any conditions on my ticket, then of course I accept those conditions.

So you accept the conditions but only when it suits. Part of that acceptance when purchasing a ticket is that during disruption you may have to go by bus.

If you want the flexibility of route why not purchase a more flexible ticket in the first place ?

 

[Tetchytyke]

What if your in a situation where even a Taxi isn't suitable ? (cycle, luggage, prams, motorbility scooter etc)

If it's due to luggage (cycles, prams, etc) then the NRCoC is clear that it's tough luck. A TOC can refuse carriage if there isn't room for something, but you will receive compensation as though your train had been cancelled.

 

[ComUtoR]

A serious question: why does motion sickness affect people travelling by road when it doesn't affect people travelling by train - or does it?

(I don't suffer from it, and I know very little about it, hence my question.)

I can't do buses either.

There is some good insight on the NHS website. Its partly the feeling of moving but not seeing the movement. Hence tips like looking out of the window at the horizon etc.

A friend of mine has motion sickness and he was a Bus Driver ! however his is more to do with speed than anything else.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I don't believe that allowing a small number of passengers to travel on an alternative route on services which are running anyway is likely to incur a significant, real cost.

Except it isn't a "small number of passengers", it can be significant numbers of passengers.

And last week those displaced passengers were taking up capacity from people who had paid to travel on the route. VTEC had people standing all the way from Edinburgh to London because of it.

What "thing" am I getting that I haven't paid for?

That depends on what ticket you buy.

On an advance ticket you pay for travel from A to B on a specific route using a specific operator and a specific train. Therefore if you travel on a different route or a different operator that operator does not receive any income from your ticket; you have not paid for travel with them. It is the same for walk-up tickets that are priced for a specific route or a specific operator.

On a walk-up ticket with no operator or route restrictions you are paying for travel on all usual reasonable* routes (*as defined by the Routeing Guide), and only operators who operate on those reasonable routes will get income from your ticket. If you go off route then the operator on that other route receives no income for your ticket, therefore you are getting travel on a route you have not paid for.

I'm sympathetic about motion sickness; I'm fine on buses if I look out of the window, but I try and read then I feel queasy.

 

[ComUtoR]

If it's due to luggage (cycles, prams, etc) then the NRCoC is clear that it's tough luck. A TOC can refuse carriage if there isn't room for something, but you will receive compensation as though your train had been cancelled.

Thanks for the technical answer. *edit* and the more technical reply about tickets than my lame example.

Does that extend to disability ? If a refund was given then it could mitigate the cost of going via an alternative route. Could I then get delay repay...

 

[BRX]

ComUtoR

I think you may be misunderstanding my position.

I am not saying that ticket validity based on route or TOC should be changed other than temporarily, in the instance of major disruption, where it would allow people to have the option of completing their journey by rail rather than bus, if they preferred to do so.

I don't see how ticket validities outside of these special circumstances are relevant. There is no need to change them. The passenger's choice at the point of buying the ticket remains the same - pay less for a more restrictive ticket, pay more for flexibility.

If they have paid for the restrictive ticket then in almost all cases they will complete the journey according to those conditions.

If they have paid for the restrictive ticket, then there is disruption, and they are allowed to travel on a train that normally they couldn't, they don't gain anything. They almost certainly still get to their destination late, and without a seat reservation. They have not gained any of the flexibility they could have had had they bought the more expensive ticket.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Does that extend to disability ? If a refund was given then it could mitigate the cost of going via an alternative route. Could I then get delay repay...

Mobility scooters are usually treated as luggage on TOCs. Some permit their use if they are folded into luggage, some permit use with a permit, and some don't permit use at all. There's no automatic right to be allowed to use a mobility scooter.

Wheelchairs will usually fold up enough to get them into the boot of a car or the luggage hold on a coach and, if they don't, TOCs won't usually let you take them on the train anyway.

 

[exile]

Okay, thanks; very useful.

However, I thought that sickness on boats (and planes?) was something other than motion sickness ... or am I wrong? (Again, I don't generally have a problem there, either!)

I believe it is the same mechanism but different people have their "trigger" set at different levels.

I challenge you not to be sick on a steamer entering Douglas Bay on the Isle of Man in a force 8!

 

[BRX]

Except it isn't a "small number of passengers", it can be significant numbers of passengers.

And last week those displaced passengers were taking up capacity from people who had paid to travel on the route. VTEC had people standing all the way from Edinburgh to London because of it.

But in the scenario I'm talking about - giving someone the option of a more roundabout route by rail, instead of a faster one by bus, most people will just take the bus because they just want to get to where they are going ASAP and don't have the worry about, say, motion sickness.

There were large numbers on VTEC the other week because that's how people were being advised to travel at the time.

That depends on what ticket you buy.

On an advance ticket you pay for travel from A to B on a specific route using a specific operator and a specific train. Therefore if you travel on a different route or a different operator that operator does not receive any income from your ticket; you have not paid for travel with them. It is the same for walk-up tickets that are priced for a specific route or a specific operator.

On a walk-up ticket with no operator or route restrictions you are paying for travel on all usual reasonable* routes (*as defined by the Routeing Guide), and only operators who operate on those reasonable routes will get income from your ticket. If you go off route then the operator on that other route receives no income for your ticket, therefore you are getting travel on a route you have not paid for.

Yes, I well understand what the differences in ticket restrictions are and how the revenues are divided up. Whe

When I asked what "thing" I get for free I meant from the passenger's perspective, again in the scenario I am talking about. They gain no advantage compared to what they originally paid for. So there's no motivation here to cheat the system or gain some kind of unfair advantage.

 

[ComUtoR]

ComUtoR

I think you may be misunderstanding my position.

(...)

They have not gained any of the flexibility they could have had had they bought the more expensive ticket.

I do understand what you are asking. There is still a cost and still a benefit. When you buy a restricted ticket then you have to accept its limitations. Its cheaper for a reason. You want none of the cost of flexibility but all of the benefits.

The disruption element of the ticket price is a restriction you are sacrificing for a cheaper ticket.

Even if there was a middle price ticket that was cheaper and restricted but offered "flexibility in times of disruption" it will still be another tier of ticketing. You still get a situation where the passenger with the cheapest ticket wants the benefits that a more expensive ticket allows.

Others pay the extra for that flexibility. Why can't you ?

 

[BRX]

I do understand what you are asking. There is still a cost and still a benefit. When you buy a restricted ticket then you have to accept its limitations. Its cheaper for a reason. You want none of the cost of flexibility but all of the benefits.

The disruption element of the ticket price is a restriction you are sacrificing for a cheaper ticket.

Even if there was a middle price ticket that was cheaper and restricted but offered "flexibility in times of disruption" it will still be another tier of ticketing. You still get a situation where the passenger with the cheapest ticket wants the benefits that a more expensive ticket allows.

Others pay the extra for that flexibility. Why can't you ?

You are implying that there's an understanding that when you buy, say, an "any permitted route" ticket, you are entitled to favourable treatment compared to those with advance tickets, in the event of disruption.

I don't buy tickets with that understanding. I understand that the price I pay is related to the amount of flexibility in changing my plans at the last minute, in normal operation.

I don't think there's anything in the NRCoC that says that in the event of major disruption, some passengers will be given preferential treatment because of their ticket type. At that point the train companies' obligation is to get passengers to their destination by reasonable means. And what's reasonable is not determined by ticket type.

 

[73101]

Rule one of travel sickness sufferers....always carry travel sickness tabs (pref the 20 min type).

They work well for general sickness too.....as well as hangovers

 

[Tetchytyke]

I don't think there's anything in the NRCoC that says that in the event of major disruption, some passengers will be given preferential treatment because of their ticket type. At that point the train companies' obligation is to get passengers to their destination by reasonable means. And what's reasonable is not determined by ticket type.

There is in the T&Cs of Advance tickets though. The first one being that, if a train is cancelled, the holders of AP tickets have to wait for the next one of the same operator, unless special arrangements are made. These special arrangements, or the additional wait, would not apply to people with the any permitted ticket. Someone on an any permitted ticket can just hop on the next train.

Where that operator can't get someone to their destination by reasonable means then only then do other operators have to assist. There's a perfectly good RRB, which counts as a reasonable arrangement to get you to your destination, you just don't want to use it; that's not the TOC's issue, to be quite frank.

 

[BRX]

There is in the T&Cs of Advance tickets though. The first one being that, if a train is cancelled, the holders of AP tickets have to wait for the next one of the same operator, unless special arrangements are made. These special arrangements, or the additional wait, would not apply to people with the any permitted ticket. Someone on an any permitted ticket can just hop on the next train.

Where that operator can't get someone to their destination by reasonable means then only then do other operators have to assist. There's a perfectly good RRB, which counts as a reasonable arrangement to get you to your destination, you just don't want to use it; that's not the TOC's issue, to be quite frank.

http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/times_fares/ticket_types/46546.aspx

Here's what they say,

about delays whilst travelling:

If delays occur while travelling, you will be allowed to take the next available train(s) to complete your journey.

And if the train's cancelled before you travel:

If the train you purchased a ticket for is cancelled or is delayed and you still decide to travel, special arrangements will be made to accommodate you on another train (although a seat cannot be guaranteed).

In neither instance do they actually mention anything about the operator of the train.

Where is it stated that additional rights are offered for other ticket types? These terms sound much like what I'd expect on any ticket - if the train's cancelled en route I can take the next available train, and if it's cancelled before I travel, I can choose between a refund and waiting for "special arrangements" to be made.

Granted, if I've got an unrestricted ticket and my intended train is simply cancelled I can get on the next one. But not if it's been cancelled because the line is down - leading to a bus replacement being implemented. In which case I can't just "hop on". I will have to wait for "special arrangements" of some kind.

My point being that it's not clearly stated that I have fewer options for getting around unforeseen incidents if I buy and advance versus unrestricted. This in response to the comments that this limited flexibility during disruption is a significant part of the reason why that ticket is discounted.


In any case, I've not even being arguing about what - having read all small print and T&Cs - my rights are technically. My question is about what seems reasonable, in the scenario I described: where it's possible to get to a destination, using existing train services instead of a RRB.

You're right that I don't want to use the "perfectly good" RRB - I've explained why.

I think that it should be considered reasonable for someone to avoid using a RRB by taking a longer, more time consuming diversionary route by train, if they want to. I think the way our rail system is set up should be changed if the current arrangements preclude this happening. You may of course disagree.

 

[najaB]

In neither instance do they actually mention anything about the operator of the train.

Nooooooo. :eek:

 

[trainophile]

Nooooooo. :eek:

I'm sure there's plenty of mileage left in that one!

 

[Bevan Price]

Rule one of travel sickness sufferers....always carry travel sickness tabs (pref the 20 min type).

They work well for general sickness too.....as well as hangovers

And also carry a few "sick bags" - just in case............ Or ask TOC staff if they have a plastic bag to function as an emergency sick bag...

Fortunately, I have only suffered motion sickness once, many years ago in Austrian 4 wheel passenger stock (standard guage), being bounced about for over 2 hours. Just managed to reach the toilet in time...................

 

[455driver]

Rule one of travel sickness sufferers....always carry travel sickness tabs (pref the 20 min type).

They work well for general sickness too.....as well as hangovers

But surely that is accepting responsibility for your own wellbeing?
I cant see that catching on!

I carry some paracetamols in my work bag just in case I get a headache or something although it is very rare I need them.

 

[Bald Rick]

I'm the same as the OP, instant motion sickness on cars (as a passenger) and buses / coaches if I try to do anything except look out of the window.

My simple solution is to keep looking out of the window. Failing that, close eyes and try to sleep. Often, neither works.

It's even worse on boats, I get motion sickness on any boat that I'm not driving myself. Have even been genuinely motion sick on the one of the 'pub' boats permanently moored on the Embankment (and no, officer, it wasn't caused by 6 pints of lager). For this reason, any family holidays in western France involve a trip via Eurotunnel and a long schlep along the autoroutes rather than the much faster and cheaper route of ferry to Cherbourg, Caen or St Malo.

Now if it came to an RRB, I would accept that it is my problem and not the TOCs, and either pay to go a longer way round (as per ferry example), or man up and deal with it (as when I had to book a ferry this summer as Eurotunnel was shut).

 

[BRX]

But surely that is accepting responsibility for your own wellbeing?

I can't do anything about the fact that travelling on buses can make me feel unwell.

The railway industry as a whole could help out here by doing what they reasonably can to offer an alternative to RRBs for people who'd rather not use them. As I've tried to explain several times, I'm not asking for exceptional treatment, just to be given the option to take a longer diversionary route via services that are running anyway. The real world cost to the rail companies of allowing this is very low.

In contrast, the cost to me of buying a new ticket travelling a longer route at short notice could be quite considerable, and potentially a lot more than the cost that I had budgeted for an already-planned trip.

So why are you talking about "accepting responsibility"? Responsibility for what?

 

[najaB]

The railway industry as a whole could help out here by doing what they reasonably can to offer an alternative to RRBs for people who'd rather not use them.

I agree, the only good reason not to allow someone to take a longer route is that it potentially causes "me too" from people who don't suffer from debilitating motion sickness.

That's why I suggested above that people who have a 'sick note' from a doctor should be allowed to use a reasonable alternative route if one is available. This should be written into the passenger charters.

 

[BRX]

I agree, the only good reason not to allow someone to take a longer route is that it potentially causes "me too" from people who don't suffer from debilitating motion sickness.

That's why I suggested above that people who have a 'sick note' from a doctor should be allowed to use a reasonable alternative route if one is available. This should be written into the passenger charters.

That could be a solution but is it a solution to a problem that doesn't exist?

In most cases, if there's a RRB it's because the rail alternative is an inconvenient or lengthy one. Generally people are most interested in getting where they want to as quickly as they can, once their journey has been disrupted so most people will opt for the bus. It's only the people with a genuine issue with motion sickness that are going to decide it's worth the extra time going by train. So by definition a minority, and I don't see that the "me too" thing is going to be a problem in most cases.

 

[najaB]

In most cases, if there's a RRB it's because the rail alternative is an inconvenient or lengthy one. Generally people are most interested in getting where they want to as quickly as they can, once their journey has been disrupted so most people will opt for the bus.

I don't know if I agree with that - the VTEC diversions via Carlisle are very busy with a lot of people opting for the longer train journey rather than the RRB.